Possibly, but do keep in mind that I addressed the issue of why the person should be killed with the intended implication that there would be an evasion of law-enforcement implied (mind you, I don't think that law enforcement should get involved when it comes to someone taking action against a scammer after the police have refuse to investigate).
I didn't say that it warranted the death penalty (where the government would take the role of executioner), but if a jaded person decided to off the crook who ripped him off AFTER the police refused to investigate the matter (remember, that was how the train of thought turned to vigilante killing), I don't see that as a big problem. If the police refuse to go after scammers who are stealing thousands of dollars in merchandise and a pissed off victim gets sick of the lack of justice and takes matters into their own hands, I see it as justifiable homicide.
If someone steals my stereo and I have concrete proof of who did it and the police refuse to act, I'll probably take matters into my own hands and the only 'charges' that I should be facing afterwards are the ones from the laundromat when I need to get the blood out of my shirt.
Withen a few years somebodys going to get killed because the police sat on their hands and a frustrated victim did their footwork and blows the person who scammed them away.
If the person who gets killed is the scammer, I don't see this as a bad thing.
Anyway, it might be just a good idea to track down known scammers. Someone looks shady and has a reputation, make a deal, track them down and beat them to a bloody, unrecognizable pulp.
Honestly, that would have been my method, especially since there was little chance of recovering the stolen goods. I prefer the kind of vengence where I can take personal satisfaction with the feeling of hard metal or wood repeatedly slamming against flesh. I like to hear the crook whimper and beg and sob like a small child as I crush his legs.
Of course, fun as it would be to let them live and leave them crippled for life, I would know the importance of ending it so that I could not be identified by them later.
Yes, I am a very disturbed person, but I'm not that bad if you haven't tried to screw me over.
No. Does that have anything to do with my incredibly farfetched suggestion? It isn't as though I was suggesting federally mandated GPS tracking devices in shipping packages.
...how about, when shipping something, trying to hide a GPS transponder somewhere in the object. Make it well-hidden, but also give it a limited-lifetime battery so that it won't be traceable after about a week.
If you get ripped, just follow the signal or keep track of where it last vanished (perhaps it went into a basement where it couldn't be tracked any further). Meet the crook at his/her door with a.45.
Well, okay, maybe not a.45 but be ready to inflict physical violence, since the feds are rarely helpful.
A number of people firmly believed that Doyle would somehow be 'brought back', even though Joss stated pretty soon after the character was killed off that he was only there (and in the opening credits) as a reminder to all that 'no one is safe' on Joss's productions.
And, uh, Angel is still on the air. WB keeps screwing up its air time (went from Tuesday to Monday to Sunday and it will be moving to Wednesday soon) apparently because they want the show to fail out of spite, but it's still running.
Actually, you can get around that with a local hosts file. Of course, if their machine's IP address changes, you might have some trouble, but until then things will work.
I've been thinking of setting up my own personal private DNS server. Make things easier if my ISP's DNS servers went down.
I don't think that it gets in the way at all. If he or she is asserting the Christian God, then he or she should be specific. If not, then he or she should be reminded that the Christian God is just one of many thousands of deities in which I and many others lack belief.
I simply include "God Exists" as a basic proposition needing no proof, because it's as obvious to me as the nose on anyone's face, it's natural reasoning.
The nose on anyone's face (well, apart from Michael Jackson) can be rather easily demonstrated to the satisfaction of most anyone. How can you do the same for the existence of a 'god'?
Of course, 'nose' itself has a pretty common accepted definition. I can ask several different people to define 'god' and I will likely receive several different (and sometimes contradictory) answers, so you'd better start with a concrete definition of what you mean by 'god'.
There is as much evidence--that is, legal evidence, not scientific evidence--for the existance of God as there is that there was a King Richard of England who fought in a war called the Crusades.
Which one? I find your claim hard to believe considering that there are literally thousands of different variations of 'gods' that have been worshipped throughout human history.
Once you (as in, a subset of the collective society) gain enough power (such as military force), you can pretty much do what you want, however allowing everyone to kill and steal would collapse society completely.
I'd like to know how one steals games with Stella and Mame as well. I compiled a new release candidate of xmame last night, but I've not been able to facilitate the theft of anything with it.
Leave level3. Tell your provider to tell Level3 that they are not providing the service promised, as their spam-friendliness creates real and measurable negative impact on their customer base. Take them to court if necessary.
Level3 has a crime-tolerance problem. That isn't the fault of SPEWS and it isn't the fault of people who use SPEWS to filter.
If your ISP doesn't bother listening to their customers and has no means of contacting anyone for any connecivity issues, that's not my problem, that's not SPEWS's problem and it isn't the problem of anyone who uses SPEWS's lists for filtering.
If you don't want your IP to be blacklisted, complain to your ISP. Tell your ISP that their IP blocks are listed in SPEWS because of their upstream's unethical behaviour. Tell them to complain to their spam-friendly upstream.
However, the problem is my sainted grandmother who uses BrandX ISP (connected via Sprint), trying to send mail branded by SPEWS as spam to her sister on AOL who is using SPEWS to block mail without asking her.
Sprint tolerates criminal activity. BrandX ISP, even if they don't spam, is assisting in that tolerance by giving money to Sprint. SPEWS simply lists Sprint's netblocks because of that tolerance. When Sprint does something about their spammers, the listing goes away. It is entirely up to Sprint to deal with their problem, it is not up to SPEWS. SPEWS cannot terminate the spammers' connectivity to Sprint. If an ISP is impaired because people are filtering against them because of SPEWS, they should complain to Sprint to enforce their AUP so that legitimate listings will be removed. It is not up to SPEWS to protect an ISP's income simply because that ISP has chosen to do business with a spam-friendly provider.
If your grandmother's sister needs to send e-mail, have her talk to AOL to deal with the issue. Perhaps AOL can set up a whitelist, or perhaps AOL has decided that one customer's needs does not outweigh the deluge of garbage from Sprint that would occur of the blocks were lifted.
Society has ways of dealing with people who ignore laws.
Yes, but spammers will seek whatever means necessary to escape prosecution. Also keep in mind that some spammers have resources, and the DMA -- a very powerful lobbying group -- sends lots of money to Congress. I don't see any effective laws coming up anytime soon.
If you want filters up, that is fine. Having a uncontrolled, unaccountable blacklist forced on users stink.
That's an issue with the ISPs who use SPEWS's lists to filter, not SPEWS. SPEWS just runs a list. SPEWS does not do any blocking except on their own private business. In fact, SPEWS originally was created as a private listing. The maintainers of the list decided to publicize it in case anyone else wanted some assistance with effective filtering.
Marking an ISP as a "known spam haven" is a little out of line when their only crime is to have an IP close to an IP used by a spammer, hosted by another company!
The ISP isn't marked as a "known span haven". An ISP using Sprint as an upstream that gets their IP blocks listed isn't being marked. Sprint is being marked, and Sprint's IP blocks are what get listed. It just so happens that Sprint (or UUNet or AT&T or Verio) decided to lease that particular netblock to the next customer who came along -- oftentimes large backbones will lease out this space knowing full and well that the IP block is listed in SPEWS and that the new customer will have impaired connectivity. The backbone could solve this problem by not tolerating criminal activty, but AT&T, Sprint, Verio and UUnet have all apparently decided that it's profitable to support crime even if it means screwing over legitimate customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly, but do keep in mind that I addressed the issue of why the person should be killed with the intended implication that there would be an evasion of law-enforcement implied (mind you, I don't think that law enforcement should get involved when it comes to someone taking action against a scammer after the police have refuse to investigate).
I didn't say that it warranted the death penalty (where the government would take the role of executioner), but if a jaded person decided to off the crook who ripped him off AFTER the police refused to investigate the matter (remember, that was how the train of thought turned to vigilante killing), I don't see that as a big problem. If the police refuse to go after scammers who are stealing thousands of dollars in merchandise and a pissed off victim gets sick of the lack of justice and takes matters into their own hands, I see it as justifiable homicide.
If someone steals my stereo and I have concrete proof of who did it and the police refuse to act, I'll probably take matters into my own hands and the only 'charges' that I should be facing afterwards are the ones from the laundromat when I need to get the blood out of my shirt.
That's why you do it as secretively as possible and you kill them so that they cannot identify you.
Withen a few years somebodys going to get killed because the police sat on their hands and a frustrated victim did their footwork and blows the person who scammed them away.
If the person who gets killed is the scammer, I don't see this as a bad thing.
I did call it farfetched, didn't I?
Anyway, it might be just a good idea to track down known scammers. Someone looks shady and has a reputation, make a deal, track them down and beat them to a bloody, unrecognizable pulp.
Honestly, that would have been my method, especially since there was little chance of recovering the stolen goods. I prefer the kind of vengence where I can take personal satisfaction with the feeling of hard metal or wood repeatedly slamming against flesh. I like to hear the crook whimper and beg and sob like a small child as I crush his legs.
Of course, fun as it would be to let them live and leave them crippled for life, I would know the importance of ending it so that I could not be identified by them later.
Yes, I am a very disturbed person, but I'm not that bad if you haven't tried to screw me over.
No. Does that have anything to do with my incredibly farfetched suggestion? It isn't as though I was suggesting federally mandated GPS tracking devices in shipping packages.
...how about, when shipping something, trying to hide a GPS transponder somewhere in the object. Make it well-hidden, but also give it a limited-lifetime battery so that it won't be traceable after about a week.
.45.
.45 but be ready to inflict physical violence, since the feds are rarely helpful.
If you get ripped, just follow the signal or keep track of where it last vanished (perhaps it went into a basement where it couldn't be tracked any further). Meet the crook at his/her door with a
Well, okay, maybe not a
Heh. Your misconception is a fear of many Angel fans, and possibly a vindication of their suspicions of what The WB is doing.
A number of people firmly believed that Doyle would somehow be 'brought back', even though Joss stated pretty soon after the character was killed off that he was only there (and in the opening credits) as a reminder to all that 'no one is safe' on Joss's productions.
And, uh, Angel is still on the air. WB keeps screwing up its air time (went from Tuesday to Monday to Sunday and it will be moving to Wednesday soon) apparently because they want the show to fail out of spite, but it's still running.
Why would vampires be suicidal? And what do you mean by 'recovered conscience'?
Vampires have no souls, with two very special exceptions. That's why they are evil, and as such they don't recover their conscience.
Actually, you can get around that with a local hosts file. Of course, if their machine's IP address changes, you might have some trouble, but until then things will work.
I've been thinking of setting up my own personal private DNS server. Make things easier if my ISP's DNS servers went down.
I don't think that it gets in the way at all. If he or she is asserting the Christian God, then he or she should be specific. If not, then he or she should be reminded that the Christian God is just one of many thousands of deities in which I and many others lack belief.
I simply include "God Exists" as a basic proposition needing no proof, because it's as obvious to me as the nose on anyone's face, it's natural reasoning.
The nose on anyone's face (well, apart from Michael Jackson) can be rather easily demonstrated to the satisfaction of most anyone. How can you do the same for the existence of a 'god'?
Of course, 'nose' itself has a pretty common accepted definition. I can ask several different people to define 'god' and I will likely receive several different (and sometimes contradictory) answers, so you'd better start with a concrete definition of what you mean by 'god'.
There is as much evidence--that is, legal evidence, not scientific evidence--for the existance of God as there is that there was a King Richard of England who fought in a war called the Crusades.
Which one? I find your claim hard to believe considering that there are literally thousands of different variations of 'gods' that have been worshipped throughout human history.
Once you (as in, a subset of the collective society) gain enough power (such as military force), you can pretty much do what you want, however allowing everyone to kill and steal would collapse society completely.
Disclaimers don't work.
I'd like to know how one steals games with Stella and Mame as well. I compiled a new release candidate of xmame last night, but I've not been able to facilitate the theft of anything with it.
Leave level3. Tell your provider to tell Level3 that they are not providing the service promised, as their spam-friendliness creates real and measurable negative impact on their customer base. Take them to court if necessary.
Level3 has a crime-tolerance problem. That isn't the fault of SPEWS and it isn't the fault of people who use SPEWS to filter.
Incest? There's reports that he's been involved in child pornography.
If your ISP doesn't bother listening to their customers and has no means of contacting anyone for any connecivity issues, that's not my problem, that's not SPEWS's problem and it isn't the problem of anyone who uses SPEWS's lists for filtering.
Ralsky was back up within a few days.
In my opinion, the best solution for Ralsky is a cranial injection of a lead pellet via a combustion-based device.
If you don't want your IP to be blacklisted, complain to your ISP. Tell your ISP that their IP blocks are listed in SPEWS because of their upstream's unethical behaviour. Tell them to complain to their spam-friendly upstream.
However, the problem is my sainted grandmother who uses BrandX ISP (connected via Sprint), trying to send mail branded by SPEWS as spam to her sister on AOL who is using SPEWS to block mail without asking her.
Sprint tolerates criminal activity. BrandX ISP, even if they don't spam, is assisting in that tolerance by giving money to Sprint. SPEWS simply lists Sprint's netblocks because of that tolerance. When Sprint does something about their spammers, the listing goes away. It is entirely up to Sprint to deal with their problem, it is not up to SPEWS. SPEWS cannot terminate the spammers' connectivity to Sprint. If an ISP is impaired because people are filtering against them because of SPEWS, they should complain to Sprint to enforce their AUP so that legitimate listings will be removed. It is not up to SPEWS to protect an ISP's income simply because that ISP has chosen to do business with a spam-friendly provider.
If your grandmother's sister needs to send e-mail, have her talk to AOL to deal with the issue. Perhaps AOL can set up a whitelist, or perhaps AOL has decided that one customer's needs does not outweigh the deluge of garbage from Sprint that would occur of the blocks were lifted.
Society has ways of dealing with people who ignore laws.
Yes, but spammers will seek whatever means necessary to escape prosecution. Also keep in mind that some spammers have resources, and the DMA -- a very powerful lobbying group -- sends lots of money to Congress. I don't see any effective laws coming up anytime soon.
If you want filters up, that is fine. Having a uncontrolled, unaccountable blacklist forced on users stink.
That's an issue with the ISPs who use SPEWS's lists to filter, not SPEWS. SPEWS just runs a list. SPEWS does not do any blocking except on their own private business. In fact, SPEWS originally was created as a private listing. The maintainers of the list decided to publicize it in case anyone else wanted some assistance with effective filtering.
Marking an ISP as a "known spam haven" is a little out of line when their only crime is to have an IP close to an IP used by a spammer, hosted by another company!
The ISP isn't marked as a "known span haven". An ISP using Sprint as an upstream that gets their IP blocks listed isn't being marked. Sprint is being marked, and Sprint's IP blocks are what get listed. It just so happens that Sprint (or UUNet or AT&T or Verio) decided to lease that particular netblock to the next customer who came along -- oftentimes large backbones will lease out this space knowing full and well that the IP block is listed in SPEWS and that the new customer will have impaired connectivity. The backbone could solve this problem by not tolerating criminal activty, but AT&T, Sprint, Verio and UUnet have all apparently decided that it's profitable to support crime even if it means screwing over legitimate customers.
But at least I have to hand it to this person, at least he's got some morals, or so he says.
Rule No. 1: Spammers lie.
Ralsky has been known to engage in fraud, denial of service and he's even believed to have dealt in child pornography.